Bond 25 (2019)

There was something on the radio the other day about how Elba has ruled himself out because at 43, he's 'too old to be chasing girls'.

Here's hoping they listen to him.

Hopefully a 3 year gap will help de-shytise the whole thing.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

There was something on the radio the other day about how Elba has ruled himself out because at 43, he's 'too old to be chasing girls'.  

Here's hoping they listen to him.

Quite. At least he has the sense not to pursue it. Actors know their casting, and Bond isn't his.

http://www.esquire.co.uk/culture/film/news/a10611/the-shortlist-of-actors-vying-to-be-the-next-bond-has-reportedly-been-leaked/

I don't know how legit this is, but there may yet be hope for the Holy Fassbonder.

Hopefully!

Surely we'd be getting some official news of this before the year's out? It's almost been a year since SPECTRE's release.

The Sun? The same people who reported Bond 24 would be titled Devil May Care?

Yeah, exactly. The Sun is quite happy to print rumoured half-stories as if they were gospel truth.

I wanted more James Bond news, but this is not what I had in mind:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/daniel-craig-offered-200-million-to-play-james-bond-in-another-two-films-20160905-gr9jb3.html

Give it to the writers, not to a bloke who looks to old for the part and supposedly doesn't even want it. Whoever writes it should get the money to motivate them to pen a solid screenplay like Skyfall or From Russia With Love.

Of course, the validity of the article is questioned, citing (or not citing) Connery's unofficial turn as Bond, and Sony's involvement... I thought they were done after SPECTRE?

If it's true, and Craig accepts it, we can say goodbye to Michael Fassbender's chances as OO7.

As you say, there are better things they could do with $200 million. Craig's attitude suggests he'll sleepwalk through any future Bond project.

The character is bigger than any one actor, so it's frankly insane that they'd offer that much dough to someone whose tenure has reached its natural conclusion. A fresh, younger actor will draw just as many - if not more - crowds and for a fraction of the cost.

Exactly.

Also, his fee would be $50m more than the entire budget of Skyfall. Absolutely crazy!

There's a whiff of desperation about the offer. It's as if they don't think they'd be able to market anyone else in the role. Odd.

As you said, a fresh younger actor will draw as many tickets, if not more, out of sheer curiosity and dedication to the series. Craig is the sixth Bond - he isn't Lazenby replacing Connery - and other actors have continued the series. Bond goes on... The actor doesn't.

An official announcement would be nice. One tires of the press speculation.

CJB wrote:

As you say, there are better things they could do with $200 million. Craig's attitude suggests he'll sleepwalk through any future Bond project.

In fairness to Craig, he didn't suggest he would do another Bond film only for the money; he ACTUALLY SAID IT.

Quote :

The character is bigger than any one actor, so it's frankly insane that they'd offer that much dough to someone whose tenure has reached its natural conclusion. A fresh, younger actor will draw just as many - if not more - crowds and for a fraction of the cost.

I think it's a good time for Craig to go. Mendes won't be back; SPECTURD's storyline (what little of it there was, and no matter how implausible...) gives Craig's Bond an off-ramp and I suggest they both take it and let the franchise start again fresh (which is odd to say after only 4 films).

In fact, I think the creative direction of the series is going to be much harder to work out than who will play Bond. It's not good practice to "reboot" after every four films, which is what we've gotten with Brosnan and Craig. I do think going a bit younger this time might be helpful as the actor can stick with it longer.

Maybe the $200 million dollars included back-end deals such as percentage of profits, endorsement money, producer fee, etc...because nobody is making that kind of money anymore. I don't think even Robert Downey Jr got that much to come back as Iron Man.

I'd accept Hiddleston but my preference at this point is Aidan Turner. I've now seen James Norton in both GRANTCHESTER and WAR & PEACE and do not believe he'd be an acceptable Bond; seen no discernible screen presence that would make him a good fit as 007.

And of course Idris Elba goes without saying.

Not on the Fassbender-for-Bond bandwagon?

I agree about not rebooting. I don't consider any of what we have to be reboots. Just continue on, making a film series that may or may not connect to the other films (i.e. the occasional references to Tracy/Vesper, a brief mention of a location from the previous movie, recurring characters, "the bullion job in '64" - that kind of thing).

Time to bring back standalone Bond pictures. Tying consecutive films together seems to encourage deep n' gritty stupidity, which in this instance culminated in the shark-jumping Your-Brother-Blofeld-Was-Behind-Everything-Bad-In-The-Last-Four-Films plot twist.

FieldsMan wrote:

Not on the Fassbender-for-Bond bandwagon?

But I'm not anti-Fassbender either. He just hasn't appealed to me much in of anything he's been in. Despite being in a lot, he hasn't had what I'd consider a break-through role.

I could live with Fassbender, but at least with Aidan Turner he looks much closer physically to what Fleming had in mind. He also looks like a young Timothy Dalton, so that helps.

Quote :

I agree about not rebooting. I don't consider any of what we have to be reboots. Just continue on, making a film series that may or may not connect to the other films (i.e. the occasional references to Tracy/Vesper, a brief mention of a location from the previous movie, recurring characters, "the bullion job in '64" - that kind of thing).

I consider most of the actors to have been in their own Bond-universe, with the exception of Connery through Moore. I always felt that they were sharing the same Bond chronology since, for the most part, the character aged with the actors (Moore being older than Connery when he took over from Connery).

Dalton was self-contained, even though there was a reference to his marriage.

Brosnan was self-contained, with almost no hint of a relationship to Tracy.

And Craig is self-contained.

I don't consider any films by one actor bound to the other in the series.

Kind of a shame the way they chose to bring back Blofeld in this film. By not tying him in as 007's family, they could have used him in the next film or the film after that. Instead, they've made creative decisions that seem to lock him in with Craig. So it appears to be one and done for this Blofeld, and it's too soon to try and re-reboot the character. If we're going to bring back characters from the past, let's give Scaramanga, Goldfinger, Dr.No, Wint & Kidd, Odd Job or Jaws a try.

But most of all, I'm done with all this political correctness. And it seems like movie audiences are to; look at how they rejected GHOSTBUSTIERS. And that's just one example. I'd like to see BOND 25 with a Bond who isn't self-conflicted or in touch with his feminine side. I want a Bond who shoots first and asks questions later. I want a Bond Girl that is a total bimbo and does a couple of tastefully done nude-scenes that add absolutely nothing to the plot. I want a villain bent on world domination just because HE is evil (no explanations needed; no pop psychosis). I want M to be played by Charles Dance. I want a white Moneypenny and a white, straight Q (no retconning some of these characters the way STAR TREK BEYOND did).

I always thought Elektra's "have you ever lost a loved one" and Bond's hesitation to be a reference to Tracy.

I don't want the return of any character except for Blofeld (hopefully not as a continuation of the SPECTRE version), M, Q, Miss Moneypenny, Tanner and Felix Leiter, and then any other character who can be made as new recurring allies/villains as Mr White, General Gogol, and Zukovsky were for their respective eras. I especially don't want the return of characters when their characters were so beautifully performed. So that rules out Scaramanga, Goldfinger, Dr. No, Jaws, etc.

But I do like your summation of what you want the next Bond film(s) to be like. Except maybe Charles Dance as M - he'd be great, but I'm happy with Fiennes (as long as he's used in a similar manner to Lee and Brown's M, and Dench's M circa GE and TND).

FieldsMan wrote:

I always thought Elektra's "have you ever lost a loved one" and Bond's hesitation to be a reference to Tracy.

Yeah, me too. I use it (and Moore's annoyance at her mention in TSWLM, him visiting her grave at the beginning of FYEO, Dalton's discomfort with her being mentioned in LTK and Skyfall making it absolutely clear that the FAMILY name is Bond) to shoot down that fan theory that 'James Bond' is a codename passed from one agent to the next if I see it crop up on Facebook etc.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I use it (and Moore's annoyance at her mention in TSWLM, him visiting her grave at the beginning of FYEO, Dalton's discomfort with her being mentioned in LTK and Skyfall making it absolutely clear that the FAMILY name is Bond) to shoot down that fan theory that 'James Bond' is a codename passed from one agent to the next if I see it crop up on Facebook etc.

I remember back in my earlier, less-internet savvy days getting into an internet argument about this. The person I was responding to actually tried to spin it that MI6 was just hiring male widowers to take the "James Bond" codename.

And to comment on topic. If they really need that amount to try and bring back Craig. Just let him go, please. Chances are this will be a YOLT-level performance if the only thing bringing him back is a large amount like that. Unless he comes back of his own accord with some sense of enthusiasm then just find a new Bond. Fassbender would be just fine with the right script.

Strangways&Quarrel wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

I use it (and Moore's annoyance at her mention in TSWLM, him visiting her grave at the beginning of FYEO, Dalton's discomfort with her being mentioned in LTK and Skyfall making it absolutely clear that the FAMILY name is Bond) to shoot down that fan theory that 'James Bond' is a codename passed from one agent to the next if I see it crop up on Facebook etc.

I remember back in my earlier, less-internet savvy days getting into an internet argument about this. The person I was responding to actually tried to spin it that MI6 was just hiring male widowers to take the "James Bond" codename.

Top marks for creativity...

Strangways&Quarrel wrote:

And to comment on topic. If they really need that amount to try and bring back Craig. Just let him go, please. Chances are this will be a YOLT-level performance if the only thing bringing him back is a large amount like that. Unless he comes back of his own accord with some sense of enthusiasm then just find a new Bond. Fassbender would be just fine with the right script.

Exactly.

Just saw this, so hopefully it means no such offer was made:
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/09/james-bond-daniel-craig-150-million-rumor

Interesting to see that article confirm that Craig is contracted for 5.

Well, considering MGW said Craig isn't contractually obligated for Bond 25, I'm inclined to believe that.

I've just watched the first two episodes of WOLF HALL...not sure where the idea came from that Damien Lewis would be a good Bond. He looks nothing like Bond, and that's saying something when your immediate predecessor is Daniel Craig.

So, we can scratch Damien Lewis and James Norton from the list.

Chris Hemsworth??? Eh.... I don't know. A definite maybe.

Still need to see Hiddleston in something other than Thor. The Night Manager is a "long wait" in my Netflix que, so my analysis is incomplete. I question his judgement, though; pulling that p.r. stunt with Taylor Swift..he's got to be smarter than that if he wants the 007 franchise.

Preference is still Aidan Turner until another actor proves different.

I'd only heard Hemsworth mentioned as a contender by some dude who's apparently one of Craig's Bond stuntmen.